John Smith wrote:
On 5/25/2011 12:43 PM, RD Sandman wrote:

John wrote in news:irh49m$id0$3@dont-
email.me:

On 5/24/2011 1:18 PM, wrote:

...
You chose the easy point of my post to reply to.

The point you ignored is that your suggested system - "Let me put this
more bluntly. If I buy and item and pay 7% sales tax, the top one
percent should buy an item and pay a 42.7% sales tax, that way they
will be contributing their fair share to run government ..." - is
either impossible to implement, or requires a dictatorship.
...


Yes, that is a fair system, you simply want to take it literally and

say

it doesn't work. I am not stuck on any particular system to implement
it with. Any system which can demonstrate that it can successfully
accomplish the goal, and costing the least, would be great.


THINK for a change, John. How would a system like that have to work?
How would a merchant know whether to charge 7% sales tax or 42% sales tax
or some amount in between?

Any system only needs to manage that 1% of those with control of 42.7%
of the financial money pay 42.7% of the sales taxes. And that 20% at
the top pay 50.3% of the taxes.


And just how do you think it knows which one you are? Or who is in those
brackets? You are looking at Big Brother from 1984 big time.

I simply gave a simplified version of what is to be accomplished.


No, you showed that you really don't understand what is involved in that
scheme.
Those

with any common sense would have realized it was over simplified ...


REally, really oversimplified....so much so that you don't seem to have
any grasp of the basics.

I don't give a rats arse how you get the water from the well, just that
the water comes from the well ...


If you are whining about the costs and fairness of things, you really
should care. In this case you are pushing the costs would completely
overwhelm the result.



I said everyone needs taxed at an equal rate on every dollar earned ...

I said crooks will always attempt to avoid this.

I have no real problem with a "luxury" tax, too.
Cell Phones for instance? Noop
Cell phones with camera's all the "apps?" Yup.
Basic 19" TV's? Noop.
Large screen LED/LCD things that cover an entire wall? Yup.
Chevy's? Noop. They are already sorry for buying them.
Cadillac's, BMW's, Mercedes' and the like? Yup.

Dave LaRue wrote in news:4ddd70a9$0$9061
:

John Smith wrote:
On 5/25/2011 12:43 PM, RD Sandman wrote:

John wrote in news:irh49m$id0$3@dont-
email.me:

On 5/24/2011 1:18 PM, wrote:

...
You chose the easy point of my post to reply to.

The point you ignored is that your suggested system - "Let me put
this
more bluntly. If I buy and item and pay 7% sales tax, the top one
percent should buy an item and pay a 42.7% sales tax, that way they
will be contributing their fair share to run government ..." - is
either impossible to implement, or requires a dictatorship.
...


Yes, that is a fair system, you simply want to take it literally and

say

it doesn't work. I am not stuck on any particular system to implement
it with. Any system which can demonstrate that it can successfully
accomplish the goal, and costing the least, would be great.


THINK for a change, John. How would a system like that have to work?
How would a merchant know whether to charge 7% sales tax or 42% sales
tax
or some amount in between?

Any system only needs to manage that 1% of those with control of 42.7%
of the financial money pay 42.7% of the sales taxes. And that 20% at
the top pay 50.3% of the taxes.


And just how do you think it knows which one you are? Or who is in
those
brackets? You are looking at Big Brother from 1984 big time.

I simply gave a simplified version of what is to be accomplished.


No, you showed that you really don't understand what is involved in
that
scheme.
Those

with any common sense would have realized it was over simplified ...


REally, really oversimplified....so much so that you don't seem to have
any grasp of the basics.

I don't give a rats arse how you get the water from the well, just
that
the water comes from the well ...


If you are whining about the costs and fairness of things, you really
should care. In this case you are pushing the costs would completely
overwhelm the result.



I said everyone needs taxed at an equal rate on every dollar earned ...

I said crooks will always attempt to avoid this.

I have no real problem with a "luxury" tax, too.
Cell Phones for instance? Noop
Cell phones with camera's all the "apps?" Yup.
Basic 19" TV's? Noop.
Large screen LED/LCD things that cover an entire wall? Yup.
Chevy's? Noop. They are already sorry for buying them.
Cadillac's, BMW's, Mercedes' and the like? Yup.






Do the words "equal protection" mean ANYTHING to you?

I fail to see anything in there about income levels determing anything.

--
Herman Cain for President! http://hermancain.com/
If you don't support him you are a Racist!!
He beat Cancer. He'll beat Obama (who is just like cancer)

Remember Desert One, Carter 0? Ain't it sad to wish that Obama had as much
ambition but being glad he doesn't knowing he doesn't have THAT much
competence?

Have you got any diesel fuel?
///If I had any more diesel fuel, they would make me join that Opec!///
cuhulin

"Sid9" sid9@ bellsouth.net wrote in :


"RD Sandman" wrote in message
...
"Sid9" sid9@ bellsouth.net wrote in
:


"RD Sandman" wrote in message
...
"Sid9" sid9@ bellsouth.net wrote in
:


"RD Sandman" wrote in message
...
John Smith wrote in
news:irgik5$f2r$3@dont- email.me:

On 5/24/2011 8:20 AM, gfn wrote:

...

Where are some credible souces to back up any of that innuendo
you
keep
attempting to push?

Truth is, sure looks like the wealthiest 1% are not paying 42%
of
all
of
governments costs, and sure looks like the top 19% are not
paying
half
of governments costs, until that happens they are NOT paying
their
fair
share ... a flat tax can fix that ...

Oh, you mean one like this?

A tax on *ALL* income no matter where derived. One deduction.
Federal
poverty level for a family of four and everybody gets that
deduction.
Have a tax rate of, say 15% and the current poverty level at $24K
and
we
get the following:

A person who earns up to $24K, pays nada...
A person who earns $50K, pays $3,900 (50-24x15%)
A person who earns $100K, pays $11,400 (100-24x15%)
A person who earns $500K, pays $71,400 (500-24x15%)
A person who earns a million pays $146,400 (1000-24x15%)

That do it for you?


.
.
If you add a $1,000 tax to the $50,000 guy he becomes homeless
If you add a $1,000 tax to the $1,000,000 guy...he never notices
it.

That's what's UNFAIR.

Nope, what's unfair is YOU expecting OTHERS to pay for what YOU
want.

The EFFECT on the wealthy taxpayer is nil.
The EFFECT on the low income tax payer is catastrophic.

Interestingly, no one is asking that $50K guy for that extra grand,
but
here you are whining that the million dollar guy won't as affected.

The problem Democrats will have is that sometime they will run out
of other people's money.



--
Sleep well tonight....RD (The Sandman)

If you woke up this morning....
Don't complain.

That's what is unfair.
A small increase of tax on a low earner is a huge burden
The same increase on a wealthy person is INSIGNIFICANT.

No one is asking for the same increase from both parties, you idiot.
Besides if the low earner is really a low earner like the 45% who
don't pay tax in the first place, how can you increase the tax on
them. They still won't reach the AGI that pays taxes. Increasing
the tax percentage doesn't do a damn thing to change their AGI.


--
Sleep well tonight....RD (The Sandman)

If you woke up this morning....
Don't complain.

I gave an example of how the same number (dollars) has a different
affect on people of different wealth.
You didn’t understand it.....


OH, I understood it. Just commented that no one is asking for that so it
is a canard and little else.



--
Sleep well tonight....RD (The Sandman)

If you woke up this morning....
Don't complain.

gfn wrote in
:


Sure I do. *The "flat tax" has the government deriving its revenue
from the income tax.

Yep....at a flat rate for everybody.


As does the FairTax. Best part is the consumer pays it only when they
buy something. They decide when to pay it, not when the government
decides you owe it on payday.

It looks like they are trying to mix sales tax with the old luxury tax.

The FairTax is related because it is a flat sales

tax that generates revenue from sales. *It replaces the income tax
as the method of funding government. *If you fully understand the
FairTax
you will see exactly where I am coming from.

Then to keep it from becoming regressive you must drop that sales tax
from certain items, like food, housing, public transportation,
gasoline, etc.. or you end up with the poor paying a much larger
percentage of their income on those taxes than the wealthy.


Nope, There are two reasons why it's not regressive. First, people
pay no net FairTax at all up to the poverty level.

Which means that someone, somewhere needs to know your income.

Every household
receives a rebate that is equal to the FairTax paid on essential goods
and services.

I looked at the prebate schedule. Where in there does income come into
it for that poverty level? From what I see, it is based on number of
adults and number of dependents.

Second, per my example an item that costs $100 today
still costs $100 under the FairTax.
If that's regressive then sign me
up.



The poor are always going to pay a larger percentage of their income
on everything. No tax system is going to change that. Isn't that
what the bulk of this thread is about?

Not on a flat tax like I proposed. The difference is slight, depending
on your income, but it is there.

The FairTax is a replacement

for the income tax.

Yes....and a flat tax is another method of figuring income tax.

Yeah....and they both accomplish the same thing. *The FairTax is
better because a flat tax still involves taxing income which then
leads to exemptions, deductions, and keeps the 16th amendment in
place as well as the IRS, and I can go on and on about the pitfalls
of our current tax system.

A flat tax on income replaces the current tax system. *If properly
administered it only has ONE deduction and that is poverty level
wages for a family of four. *Everyone gets that ONE deduction, or
exemption if
you prefer, and no other. *You can do your tax on a postcard.


Under the FairTax you don't have to worry about deductions or
exemptions. You don't even have to do your taxes on a postcard
because there is nothing to do. April 15 would be just another
beautiful spring day.

Here's the problem with the flat tax, it retains the invasive income
tax administration apparatus and can easily revert to a graduated,
convoluted mess, as it has many times over many years.

And your fair tax needs to know number of adults in the household along
with number of dependents. There is also nothing there that prevents it
from becoming another convoluted mess. Congress can **** up a bowling
ball.

In addition, a
large part of the burden of the flat tax -- the business tax -- will
remain hidden from people in the retail price of goods and services.

This is an interesting point since there are supposedly intelligent folks
in this newsgroup that don't understand that all businesses end up
passing all their costs to the consumer in the price of the product or
service. If they don't, after awhile they go under.

Under a flat tax, individuals would still file an income tax return
each year. Postcard or not, it's still a return. While this is a
simple postcard, the record keeping requirement is still there. Under
the FairTax, individuals never file a tax return again, ever!

Federally, that could be true, however, when looking at state and local
taxes, it is bull****.

Under
the flat tax, the payroll tax would be retained and income tax
withholding would still be with us.

Yep.

Under the FairTax, the payroll
tax, which is a larger and more regressive tax burden for most
Americans than is the income tax, is repealed.

No, actually, it isn't. It is simply placed in the Fair Tax.

Under the FairTax, what
you earn is what you keep. No more withholding taxes; no more income
tax.

Just more taxes on the point of sale while all taxes from state and local
governments remains intact.

It uses a flat 23% as the revenue generator.

Call it what you will, the FairTax is a winner.

You may think so. I don't. I think it needs too many adjustments
so that it does not become regressive.

I don't think so, I know so. *Tell me how this is regressive?
snip......

Same taxpayer......buys $100 worth of groceries.....pays $123 for
them.

Stop right there. That's incorrect. Under the FairTax the $100 of
groceries will still cost $100. There's no need to even go any
further with your example.

I was speaking of the actual worth of the product. Yes, there are
business taxes, etc.. in there but one cannot generate a new tax without
adding to what is already there. So a product which today costs $100
plus city and state sales taxes will now cost the difference between the
23% sales tax and the old taxes on the product plus city and state sales
taxes. What you have done is taken the taxes previously included the
product price and moved them into your Fair Tax in addition to the hit on
that tax replacing federal income taxes and FICA.

Rich guy, he eats the same, so he buys a $100 worth of
groceries...pays
*
$123 for them. *Which one spent the bigger percentage of their income
o
n
a necessity? *OK, let's fix it....we will not pay that tax on
groceries....oooops, you just generated an exception. *

Three suggestions for you to find out why as well as any other
questions you might have:

1) go visit fairtax.org and read it from front to back. *Pay
particular attention to the FAQ.

I have.

2) Buy and read "The FairTax Book" by Linder and Boortz.

Why? If they can't explain it on their website..........

3) Then buy and read "FairTax:The Truth: Answering the Critics"

It will all become crystal clear.

I am familiar with sales tax schemes, they have been around for
years.
*
With exemptions, they become just as convoluted as the current
system. Excise luxury taxes were another attempt to soak the rich as
poor poeple would never buy luxury taxed items. *How did that work
out?


You may be familiar with sales tax schemes, but it's clear you aren't
familiar with the FairTax. Instead of speculating as you have done
above why not go visit the site and base your criticisms on the plan
itself? You will find that many of the things you raised above are
answered there.

Been there, read it.

Look, I'm with you that a flat tax would be better than the current
system. Problem is that it, as opposed to something like the FairTax,
leaves itself open to far more manipulation than the FairTax. The tax
code itself is evidence of just that.

Are you trying to say that Congress cannot **** with the Fair Tax as much
as they can **** with a flat tax? I don't think so.


--
Sleep well tonight....RD (The Sandman)

If you woke up this morning....
Don't complain.

Gray Ghost wrote:

Dave LaRue wrote in news:4ddd70a9$0$9061
:


John Smith wrote:

On 5/25/2011 12:43 PM, RD Sandman wrote:


John wrote in news:irh49m$id0$3@dont-
email.me:


On 5/24/2011 1:18 PM, wrote:


...
You chose the easy point of my post to reply to.

The point you ignored is that your suggested system - "Let me put

this

more bluntly. If I buy and item and pay 7% sales tax, the top one
percent should buy an item and pay a 42.7% sales tax, that way they
will be contributing their fair share to run government ..." - is
either impossible to implement, or requires a dictatorship.
...


Yes, that is a fair system, you simply want to take it literally and

say


it doesn't work. I am not stuck on any particular system to implement
it with. Any system which can demonstrate that it can successfully
accomplish the goal, and costing the least, would be great.


THINK for a change, John. How would a system like that have to work?
How would a merchant know whether to charge 7% sales tax or 42% sales

tax

or some amount in between?


Any system only needs to manage that 1% of those with control of 42.7%
of the financial money pay 42.7% of the sales taxes. And that 20% at
the top pay 50.3% of the taxes.


And just how do you think it knows which one you are? Or who is in

those

brackets? You are looking at Big Brother from 1984 big time.


I simply gave a simplified version of what is to be accomplished.


No, you showed that you really don't understand what is involved in

that

scheme.
Those


with any common sense would have realized it was over simplified ...


REally, really oversimplified....so much so that you don't seem to have
any grasp of the basics.


I don't give a rats arse how you get the water from the well, just

that

the water comes from the well ...


If you are whining about the costs and fairness of things, you really
should care. In this case you are pushing the costs would completely
overwhelm the result.



I said everyone needs taxed at an equal rate on every dollar earned ...

I said crooks will always attempt to avoid this.

I have no real problem with a "luxury" tax, too.
Cell Phones for instance? Noop
Cell phones with camera's all the "apps?" Yup.
Basic 19" TV's? Noop.
Large screen LED/LCD things that cover an entire wall? Yup.
Chevy's? Noop. They are already sorry for buying them.
Cadillac's, BMW's, Mercedes' and the like? Yup.

Do the words "equal protection" mean ANYTHING to you?

Indeed I do understand.
What's that got to do with a luxury tax?

I fail to see anything in there about income levels determing anything.

I wasn't talking about income levels.

I was talking more about a "fair sales Luxury tax", that keeps, or
rather helps keep in check, the "truly poor" from buying said items
whilst they are on welfare and food stamps, like they do now as they
fool the system.

Most wealthy people could care less what they pay for anything.
They already want and buy the biggest and baddest, and buy the first
models and prototypes just because it's there!
THEY bring the costs down when they finally go into major production!

Cost means NOTHING to them!

But poor slobs don't need, nor want them, until the items or tech
becomes more afforable.

Again, thank us, the rich that bring these items to the masses at a
lower cost, to the poor!

So again, don't tax our (the rich) incomes, tax SAID ITEMS that even the
poor choose to buy, instead of the food they need.

Gray Ghost wrote in
. 97.142:

RD Sandman wrote in
:

gfn wrote in

:

On May 24, 3:00*pm, RD Sandman
wrote:
gfn wrote
innews:fafaebf4-7788-4906-a699-839c2c5dac6b@
s2g2000yql.googlegroups.com:









On May 24, 2:34*pm, RD Sandman
wrote:
gfn wrote
innews:5111f00d-80ed-4513-9bae-c9a63b5cdb40@
x3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:

On May 24, 1:23*pm, RD Sandman
wrote:
gfn wrote in
news:75946acf-fb50-4a71-9677-e0b1afec14b0
@w19g2000yql.googlegroups.com:

On May 24, 11:24*am, John Smith
wrote:
On 5/24/2011 8:20 AM, gfn wrote:

* ...

Where are some credible souces to back up any of that
innuendo you
keep
attempting to push?

Truth is, sure looks like the wealthiest 1% are not paying
42% of all
of
governments costs, and sure looks like the top 19% are not
paying half of governments costs, until that happens they
are NOT paying their
fair
share ... a flat tax can fix that ...

Regards,
JS

I already said the tax data is at irs.gov

Now, as for a flat tax I agree with you 100%. *The one I
advocate is the FairTax.

That is not a flat tax, it is a sales tax.

It's a sales tax but it is flat. *It's a flat 23%.

You had better spend some time learning what a flat tax is.

I'm perfectly familiar with a flat tax.

Not sure about that since it has nothing to do with sales.


Sure I do. The "flat tax" has the government deriving its revenue
from the income tax.

Yep....at a flat rate for everybody.

The FairTax is related because it is a flat sales
tax that generates revenue from sales. It replaces the income tax
as the method of funding government. If you fully understand the
FairTax you will see exactly where I am coming from.

Then to keep it from becoming regressive you must drop that sales tax
from certain items, like food, housing, public transportation,
gasoline, etc.. or you end up with the poor paying a much larger
percentage of their income on those taxes than the wealthy.

* The FairTax is a replacement

for the income tax.

Yes....and a flat tax is another method of figuring income tax.


Yeah....and they both accomplish the same thing. The FairTax is
better because a flat tax still involves taxing income which then
leads to exemptions, deductions, and keeps the 16th amendment in
place as well as the IRS, and I can go on and on about the pitfalls
of our current tax system.

A flat tax on income replaces the current tax system. If properly
administered it only has ONE deduction and that is poverty level
wages for a family of four. Everyone gets that ONE deduction, or
exemption if you prefer, and no other. You can do your tax on a
postcard.

*It uses a flat 23% as the revenue generator.

Call it what you will, the FairTax is a winner.

You may think so. *I don't. *I think it needs too many adjustments
so that it does not become regressive.


I don't think so, I know so. Tell me how this is regressive?

Current tax system:

Taxpayer earns $1000 a year.
IRS takes 25%: $250.
Taxpayer has $750 left to spend.
Taxpayer buys a new toaster for a FINAL total of $130.
Taxpayer has $620 left.

Fairtax system:

Taxpayer earns $1000 a year.
IRS takes 0%: $0
Taxpayer has $1000 left to spend
Taxpayer buys a new toaster for a FINAL total of $130.
Taxpayer has $870 left.

I'll go one better under the fairtax system.

Taxpayer earns $1000 a year.
IRS takes 0%: $0
Taxpayer has $1000 left to spend
Taxpayer buys a USED toaster for a total of $100.
Taxpayer pays NO fairtax sales tax.
Taxpayer has $900 left.

So, again, how is that regressive.

Same taxpayer......buys $100 worth of groceries.....pays $123 for
them. Rich guy, he eats the same, so he buys a $100 worth of
groceries...pays $123 for them. Which one spent the bigger
percentage of their income on a necessity? OK, let's fix it....we
will not pay that tax on groceries....oooops, you just generated an
exception.

Three suggestions for you to find out why as well as any other
questions you might have:

1) go visit fairtax.org and read it from front to back. Pay
particular attention to the FAQ.
2) Buy and read "The FairTax Book" by Linder and Boortz.
3) Then buy and read "FairTax:The Truth: Answering the Critics"

It will all become crystal clear.

I am familiar with sales tax schemes, they have been around for
years. With exemptions, they become just as convoluted as the
current system. Excise luxury taxes were another attempt to soak the
rich as poor poeple would never buy luxury taxed items. How did that
work out?



Ask John Kerry.


YOu mean after claiming everyone should pay their fair burden, he moors
his yacht where the taxes are much less than if he moors it at home?

--
Sleep well tonight....RD (The Sandman)

If you woke up this morning....
Don't complain.

"Sid9" sid9@ bellsouth.net wrote in :


"RD Sandman" wrote in message
...
gfn wrote in

:

On May 24, 3:00 pm, RD Sandman
wrote:
gfn wrote
innews:fafaebf4-7788-4906-a699-839c2c5dac6b@
s2g2000yql.googlegroups.com:









On May 24, 2:34 pm, RD Sandman
wrote:
gfn wrote
innews:5111f00d-80ed-4513-9bae-c9a63b5cdb40@
x3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:

On May 24, 1:23 pm, RD Sandman
wrote:
gfn wrote in
news:75946acf-fb50-4a71-9677-e0b1afec14b0
@w19g2000yql.googlegroups.com:

On May 24, 11:24 am, John Smith
wrote:
On 5/24/2011 8:20 AM, gfn wrote:

...

Where are some credible souces to back up any of that
innuendo you
keep
attempting to push?

Truth is, sure looks like the wealthiest 1% are not paying
42% of all
of
governments costs, and sure looks like the top 19% are not
paying half of governments costs, until that happens they
are NOT paying their
fair
share ... a flat tax can fix that ...

Regards,
JS

I already said the tax data is at irs.gov

Now, as for a flat tax I agree with you 100%. The one I
advocate is the FairTax.

That is not a flat tax, it is a sales tax.

It's a sales tax but it is flat. It's a flat 23%.

You had better spend some time learning what a flat tax is.

I'm perfectly familiar with a flat tax.

Not sure about that since it has nothing to do with sales.


Sure I do. The "flat tax" has the government deriving its revenue
from the income tax.

Yep....at a flat rate for everybody.

The FairTax is related because it is a flat sales
tax that generates revenue from sales. It replaces the income tax
as the method of funding government. If you fully understand the
FairTax you will see exactly where I am coming from.

Then to keep it from becoming regressive you must drop that sales tax
from certain items, like food, housing, public transportation,
gasoline, etc.. or you end up with the poor paying a much larger
percentage of their income on those taxes than the wealthy.

The FairTax is a replacement

for the income tax.

Yes....and a flat tax is another method of figuring income tax.


Yeah....and they both accomplish the same thing. The FairTax is
better because a flat tax still involves taxing income which then
leads to exemptions, deductions, and keeps the 16th amendment in
place as well as the IRS, and I can go on and on about the pitfalls
of our current tax system.

A flat tax on income replaces the current tax system. If properly
administered it only has ONE deduction and that is poverty level
wages for a family of four. Everyone gets that ONE deduction, or
exemption if you prefer, and no other. You can do your tax on a
postcard.

It uses a flat 23% as the revenue generator.

Call it what you will, the FairTax is a winner.

You may think so. I don't. I think it needs too many adjustments
so that it does not become regressive.


I don't think so, I know so. Tell me how this is regressive?

Current tax system:

Taxpayer earns $1000 a year.
IRS takes 25%: $250.
Taxpayer has $750 left to spend.
Taxpayer buys a new toaster for a FINAL total of $130.
Taxpayer has $620 left.

Fairtax system:

Taxpayer earns $1000 a year.
IRS takes 0%: $0
Taxpayer has $1000 left to spend
Taxpayer buys a new toaster for a FINAL total of $130.
Taxpayer has $870 left.

I'll go one better under the fairtax system.

Taxpayer earns $1000 a year.
IRS takes 0%: $0
Taxpayer has $1000 left to spend
Taxpayer buys a USED toaster for a total of $100.
Taxpayer pays NO fairtax sales tax.
Taxpayer has $900 left.

So, again, how is that regressive.

Same taxpayer......buys $100 worth of groceries.....pays $123 for
them. Rich guy, he eats the same, so he buys a $100 worth of
groceries...pays $123 for them. Which one spent the bigger
percentage of their income on a necessity? OK, let's fix it....we
will not pay that tax on groceries....oooops, you just generated an
exception.

Three suggestions for you to find out why as well as any other
questions you might have:

1) go visit fairtax.org and read it from front to back. Pay
particular attention to the FAQ.
2) Buy and read "The FairTax Book" by Linder and Boortz.
3) Then buy and read "FairTax:The Truth: Answering the Critics"

It will all become crystal clear.

I am familiar with sales tax schemes, they have been around for
years. With exemptions, they become just as convoluted as the current
system. Excise luxury taxes were another attempt to soak the rich as
poor poeple would never buy luxury taxed items. How did that work
out?


--
Sleep well tonight....RD (The Sandman)

If you woke up this morning....
Don't complain.

More nonsense.
We have a system that was god when it started and has been eroded over
the years.
It was sound.
It can be made sound again without phony "fair" tax and "flat" tax
nonsense Fix it.



YOu just don't understand either the Fair Tax or a flat income tax, Sid.

--
Sleep well tonight....RD (The Sandman)

If you woke up this morning....
Don't complain.

John Smith wrote in
:

On 5/25/2011 12:25 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
John wrote in
:

On 5/24/2011 12:05 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
John wrote in news:irgufi$l7$7@dont-
email.me:

On 5/24/2011 11:36 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
John wrote in
news:irgsdu$b0g$2@dont- email.me:

On 5/24/2011 10:24 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
John wrote in
:

On 5/24/2011 9:02 AM, gfn wrote:
On May 24, 11:24 am, John
wrote:
On 5/24/2011 8:20 AM, gfn wrote:

...

Where are some credible souces to back up any of that
innuendo
you
keep attempting to push?

Truth is, sure looks like the wealthiest 1% are not paying
42% of all of governments costs, and sure looks like the top
19% are not paying half of governments costs, until that
happens they are NOT paying their fair share ... a flat tax
can fix that ...

Regards,
JS
I already said the tax data is at irs.gov

Now, as for a flat tax I agree with you 100%. The one I
advocate
is
the FairTax.
Let me put this more bluntly. If I buy and item and pay 7%
sales
tax,
the top one percent should buy an item and pay a 42.7% sales
tax,
that
way they will be contributing their fair share to run
government
...
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesam...er/wealth.html
And how do you know that at the time of purchase?
You set up a system which handles it ... where they pay their
fair
share
of the cost of government.
IOW, when buying a pack of gum at a Stop-N-Rob, you have to go
through
a
check on your income so they know how much tax to charge?

C'mon, even you can't be that stupid.


The flat tax, the flat tax, I thought you would be able to catch
on ... I was wrong.
A flat tax is on income. It replaces the current method of
calculating income tax by applying the same tax rate to all income
not just wages and salaries. I gave an example of it here in this
thread. Did you take the time to read it? It is really quite
simply and quite short so you should have no problem understanding
it.

What you proposed above is a sales tax and it sure as hell isn't
flat. A flat sales tax would be the same percentage on whatever
was purchased and no matter who purchased it.

You need to learn a bit more before you venture out into the real
world.

Everyone paying their fair share, this is how the discussion began,
or, basically, everyone being equally taxed.

Of course, even with a flat tax certain safeguards would have to be
in place from preventing criminals from crimes which would allow
them to ignore the taxes.

See Al Capone.

For example, a case where they made their dollars
here and bought only foreign goods in mexico or canada ... it is a
given, as soon as any fix, situation, solution, etc. is enacted, the
criminals will come crawling out from under their rocks attempting
to avoid it ... some of these safeguards to prevent this will have
to be worked out as we catch the criminals ...

Unfortunately, every discussion must begin on the premise that
everyone is capable of realizing "common sense."

At the bottom of the fair tax or fair tax is the real intent and
sole purpose that all contribute equally and in direct relationship
to how much they profit from business here.

Just how is your fair tax different from your scenarios above. After
all, you said folks would by only foreign goods from outside the US
which avoids your fair tax.


I said everyone needs taxed at an equal rate of every dollar earned.

My flat tax does that. Fair Tax (or a sales tax) does not.

I said crooks will always attempt to break any laws in existence.

That would be true regardless of the taxing system.


--
Sleep well tonight....RD (The Sandman)

If you woke up this morning....
Don't complain.

Gray Ghost wrote in
. 97.142:

RD Sandman wrote in
:

"Scout" wrote in
:



"John Smith" wrote in message
...
On 5/24/2011 12:05 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
John wrote in news:irgufi$l7$7@dont-
email.me:

On 5/24/2011 11:36 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
John wrote in
news:irgsdu$b0g$2@dont- email.me:

On 5/24/2011 10:24 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
John wrote in
:

On 5/24/2011 9:02 AM, gfn wrote:
On May 24, 11:24 am, John
wrote:
On 5/24/2011 8:20 AM, gfn wrote:

...

Where are some credible souces to back up any of that
innuendo
you
keep attempting to push?

Truth is, sure looks like the wealthiest 1% are not paying
42% of all of governments costs, and sure looks like the
top 19% are not paying half of governments costs, until
that happens they are NOT paying their fair share ... a
flat tax can fix that ...

Regards,
JS
I already said the tax data is at irs.gov

Now, as for a flat tax I agree with you 100%. The one I
advocate
is
the FairTax.
Let me put this more bluntly. If I buy and item and pay 7%
sales
tax,
the top one percent should buy an item and pay a 42.7% sales
tax,
that
way they will be contributing their fair share to run
government
...
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesam...er/wealth.html
And how do you know that at the time of purchase?
You set up a system which handles it ... where they pay their
fair
share
of the cost of government.
IOW, when buying a pack of gum at a Stop-N-Rob, you have to go
through
a
check on your income so they know how much tax to charge?

C'mon, even you can't be that stupid.


The flat tax, the flat tax, I thought you would be able to catch
on ... I was wrong.
A flat tax is on income. It replaces the current method of
calculating income tax by applying the same tax rate to all income
not just wages and salaries. I gave an example of it here in this
thread. Did you take the time to read it? It is really quite
simply and quite short so you should have no problem understanding
it.

What you proposed above is a sales tax and it sure as hell isn't
flat. A flat sales tax would be the same percentage on whatever
was purchased and no matter who purchased it.

You need to learn a bit more before you venture out into the real
world.

Everyone paying their fair share, this is how the discussion began,
or, basically, everyone being equally taxed.


Let's see person A buys product Z and pays 7% in taxes. Person B
buys product Z and pays 7% in taxes

What's more fair than that?

Same product, same taxes paid.

Fair.

Or a person earns $50K and is taxed 15% on amount over federal
poverty level. Another person earns $500K and is taxed 15% on amount
over federal poverty level. Same percentage on taxable income paid.
Fair.

The big problem with sales taxes is what is taxed. How about food or
necessities? Food stamps? Now you begin to list exemptions....and
the list goes on......Thanks, Sonny and Cher......



The real problem is...

First you have to decide how much the government needs to funtion.

That is true under any taxing scheme.

To do that you have to decide what the government should be doing.

Same here and that is most of the discussion and difference between
liberals and conservatives.

I think rather than discussing camoflaging how the feds fleece the
taxpayer those questions really need to be answered.

Yep, but, good luck. Those discussions have been going on for two
hundred years.

I am of the opinion that taxes overall hurt the economy by taking
people's hard earned money. I don't care if you are the bus boy or the
owner of the chain. You earened it, it's yours.

However, one does get things from having a government.

Overall if the bite is reasonably low than whatever negative effects
it has are mitigated. But the only really effective way to increase
government revenues is to have a going, expanding economy. That way
whatever "protection" money the government extorts from the people can
increase without increasing the percentage that it takes.

True.

Of course that would require a complete ovrehaul of most federal
policies and the expulsion of Marxists and enviromentalists.

One would have to stop viewing tax policy as a method of molding
people's behavior and relegate to the neccessary evil it is.

Frankly I have yet to hear anyone explain to me how we can tax out way
out of the current crisis wherein the debt equals the GDP and is
likely to double in 8 years. There is simply no possible way to do it
without removing so much wealth from the private sector as to
thorougly tank the economy, which will in turn make the problem
immeasurably worse.

To get out of this will require BOTH taxes and spending cuts. Doing just
one or the other won't do it.

The truth of this must be recognized and those that ignore the
question should in turn be ignored. They are greedy, twisted people
that want to punish the successful, get thier government cheese and
then ignore the calamity for our children and grand children. And us.
They imagine somehow the beast will continue feeding enough to support
them, in spite of what the vampirism does to the country as a whole.






--
Sleep well tonight....RD (The Sandman)

If you woke up this morning....
Don't complain.